Universal Health Care

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I personally would like to keep the government as far away from my life as possible.

As would any sane person until they fall sick in the ditch and die there without any resources. You have philosophy of all those who have never known suffering or misery you can't escape alone. You are one lucky porker and a porker, of course, because you attribute your luck to your own devises instead of a favorable fate, up to this point in your life. Your hidden feelings of inferiority create that piggish illusion that your greatness is in how well you take care of yourself. May you live long in your soap bubble dream and self flattering arrogance.

Calling them "bubble boys", how appropriate. LOL! That does fit!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's your idea of what my idea is. My idea is not to have government run healthcare at all, just government paid healthcare, like Medicare already is. Medicare for all.
But I agree with you that Republicans should not be trusted with creating this system, because they have botched handling of pretty much everything they touched, including terrorism.

In 2004 we spent $256 billion on Medicare.
In 2005 Medicare provided coverage for 42.6 million people.

So to take Medicare and expand it to cover the 250 million people not covered by it would raise our cost to $1.8 trillion. How do you plan to pay for this?

Of course Medicare does NOT pay all medical costs. So most people will still need insurance beyond Medicare.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's your idea of what my idea is. My idea is not to have government run healthcare at all, just government paid healthcare, like Medicare already is. Medicare for all.
But I agree with you that Republicans should not be trusted with creating this system, because they have botched handling of pretty much everything they touched, including terrorism.

In 2004 we spent $256 billion on Medicare.
In 2005 Medicare provided coverage for 42.6 million people.

So to take Medicare and expand it to cover the 250 million people not covered by it would raise our cost to $1.8 trillion. How do you plan to pay for this?

Of course Medicare does NOT pay all medical costs. So most people will still need insurance beyond Medicare.

Yes, because a healthy adult or kid costs as much to insure as a 65+ year old senior or a disabled person on Medicare. Also, in case you failed to notice, we are already spending in excess of 2 Trillion dollars on healthcare. So $1.8 Trillion to cover everyone will be a bargain, even if it comes from higher taxes.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
So $1.8 Trillion to cover everyone will be a bargain, even if it comes from higher taxes.

Liberals are always so generous with others money.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution? Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room. You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem? "Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here. I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's your idea of what my idea is. My idea is not to have government run healthcare at all, just government paid healthcare, like Medicare already is. Medicare for all.
But I agree with you that Republicans should not be trusted with creating this system, because they have botched handling of pretty much everything they touched, including terrorism.

In 2004 we spent $256 billion on Medicare.
In 2005 Medicare provided coverage for 42.6 million people.

So to take Medicare and expand it to cover the 250 million people not covered by it would raise our cost to $1.8 trillion. How do you plan to pay for this?

Of course Medicare does NOT pay all medical costs. So most people will still need insurance beyond Medicare.

Isn't this maybe one of those times when the almighty dollar might not be the be all, end all of the discussion? There are some things worth more than money, and I'd say making sure the citizens of your country aren't needlessly dying should be on the top of that list. I don't hear you guys complaining about the ridiculous amounts of money spent by the department of defense.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
So $1.8 Trillion to cover everyone will be a bargain, even if it comes from higher taxes.

Liberals are always so generous with others money.

You talk as if only conservatives pay taxes. I imagine taxes for many liberals advocating Universal Health Care will go up as a result...I know mine will. But I just can't get on board with the idea that the only point of government is to make my taxes as low as possible.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution? Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room. You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem? "Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here. I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

You right, health care has some serious problems in the country, but I dont think goverment is the end solution. We dont have a free market in health care industry, we have a highly regulated market.

We need to let health insurance be insurance. Insurance is for the unexpected and expensive situation. Having insurance to cover common ailments just unneeded layers to obtain and pay for care. Think of how expensive home/auto insurance would be if any repair work only required a $5 copay.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution? Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room. You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem? "Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here. I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

You right, health care has some serious problems in the country, but I dont think goverment is the end solution. We dont have a free market in health care industry, we have a highly regulated market.

We need to let health insurance be insurance. Insurance is for the unexpected and expensive situation. Having insurance to cover common ailments just unneeded layers to obtain and pay for care. Think of how expensive home/auto insurance would be if any repair work only required a $5 copay.

The problem is that there is no medical equivalent of a $15 oil change at Jiffy Lube. EVERY medical procedure more complicated than buying vitamins at the grocery store is hideously expensive, even standard preventative care and common ailments. I honestly don't know if that's the fault of the medical industry being greedy, or if that's just how much health care costs...but it's simply not something that average people can afford without extensive insurance paying for everything. And if you don't have that insurance, you better never visit the doctor until you really need to, because you're going to go bankrupt paying for it. Hell, if you have any complicated treatment, there is a good chance you'll go bankrupt even WITH insurance.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You talk as if only conservatives pay taxes. I imagine taxes for many liberals advocating Universal Health Care will go up as a result...I know mine will. But I just can't get on board with the idea that the only point of government is to make my taxes as low as possible.

No, I said liberals are always generous when they're spending other peoples' money. It's been that way for decades.

You make an interesting point though, vis-a-vi conservatives being the only tax payers. AFAIK all the "Tax Protesters" tend to be far-left folks :laugh:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
So $1.8 Trillion to cover everyone will be a bargain, even if it comes from higher taxes.

Liberals are always so generous with others money.

Actually yes now that your kind have hourded so much of it withoholding essential human health sevices.

Your Pro Corporate at all costs mentality has brought this situation on yourselves.

You will suffer because you and your kind caused this situation.

It's your problem.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution?

Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room.

You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem?

"Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here.

I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

Their "Free Market", Pro Business at all costs mentality has made this situation.

This is like the Fox in the henhouse complaining that the the hens are being eaten when he is the one eating them.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution? Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room. You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem? "Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here. I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

My solution is like many, including on this board. Let the government negotiate for lower drug costs. The rest I dont have a problem with at all. All these stories of people dying in ditches and not able to get proper treatment for an ailing heart is bullshit. You are not required to have healthcare when you enter en ER. Are there exceptions? Of course. But the exceptions arent the rule. With state funded healthcare pools, welfare, and the non-requirement for receiving emergency care, most of our population is covered. The idea that someone at the poverty level receiving the same care as someone who can afford to be treated at the Mayo clinic is absurd. Just like everything else in a free market, nothing is equal nor should it be. Money buys more and better things. Period. If you want a better life, quit whining about how someone should give it to you. MAKE your own life. UHC wont change this a bit.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution?

Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room.

You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem?

"Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here.

I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

Their "Free Market", Pro Business at all costs mentality has made this situation.

This is like the Fox in the henhouse complaining that the the hens are being eaten when he is the one eating them.

It's called capitalism you dolt.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It's called capitalism you dolt.

Dave's a socialist. There's no room for Capitalism in his world.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution? Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room. You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem? "Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here. I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

You right, health care has some serious problems in the country, but I dont think goverment is the end solution. We dont have a free market in health care industry, we have a highly regulated market.

We need to let health insurance be insurance. Insurance is for the unexpected and expensive situation. Having insurance to cover common ailments just unneeded layers to obtain and pay for care. Think of how expensive home/auto insurance would be if any repair work only required a $5 copay.

Health insurance may be cheaper by encouraging insured to visit the doctor. Regular checkups may help catch problems before they become too big. Also, most plans deal with what you are worried about with the concept of a deductable.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution? Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room. You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem? "Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here. I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

My solution is like many, including on this board. Let the government negotiate for lower drug costs. The rest I dont have a problem with at all. All these stories of people dying in ditches and not able to get proper treatment for an ailing heart is bullshit. You are not required to have healthcare when you enter en ER. Are there exceptions? Of course. But the exceptions arent the rule. With state funded healthcare pools, welfare, and the non-requirement for receiving emergency care, most of our population is covered. The idea that someone at the poverty level receiving the same care as someone who can afford to be treated at the Mayo clinic is absurd. Just like everything else in a free market, nothing is equal nor should it be. Money buys more and better things. Period. If you want a better life, quit whining about how someone should give it to you. MAKE your own life. UHC wont change this a bit.

My understanging is that, due to better administration, treatment at Mayo for many things is actually cheaper than most Hostpitals. In the Twin Cities, a lot of labwork is sent to Mayo for processing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It's called capitalism you dolt.

Dave's a socialist. There's no room for Capitalism in his world.

You know what?

You're right if it means Rich live, all others eat sh!t and die call it whatever you want.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

My solution is like many, including on this board.

Let the government negotiate for lower drug costs.

Money buys more and better things. Period.

If you want a better life, quit whining about how someone should give it to you.

MAKE your own life. UHC wont change this a bit.

Wow, so many American hating statements in one breathe.

Your buds are the one's that took "negotiations" out of drug costs.

Well thanks for at least being honest about the rich deserve to live while all other eat sh!t and die mentality even if it means you hate all Americans except the rich.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

My solution is like many, including on this board.

Let the government negotiate for lower drug costs.

Money buys more and better things. Period.

If you want a better life, quit whining about how someone should give it to you.

MAKE your own life. UHC wont change this a bit.

Wow, so many American hating statements in one breathe.

Your buds are the one's that took "negotiations" out of drug costs.

Well thanks for at least being honest about the rich deserve to live while all other eat sh!t and die mentality even if it means you hate all Americans except the rich.

Its not that black and white Dave. The richer you are the better life you have. Whats your problem with that? It has nothing to do with hating Americans, it has to do with reality. Something you know nothing about.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

My solution is like many, including on this board.

Let the government negotiate for lower drug costs.

Money buys more and better things. Period.

If you want a better life, quit whining about how someone should give it to you.

MAKE your own life. UHC wont change this a bit.

Wow, so many American hating statements in one breathe.

Your buds are the one's that took "negotiations" out of drug costs.

Well thanks for at least being honest about the rich deserve to live while all other eat sh!t and die mentality even if it means you hate all Americans except the rich.

Its not that black and white Dave.

The richer you are the better life you have. Whats your problem with that? It has nothing to do with hating Americans, it has to do with reality. Something you know nothing about.

Yes it was "black & white" for the better part of 225 Years until your ilk took over control with an agenda for destroying this Country and continuing to destroy it.

No one has had a problem with the rich until they impinge on ordinary American's rights.

It happened in the 1880's which led to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

It happened with the 1929 Crash and it is happening again now.

You will clearly be on the wrong side of the fence once enough Americans are personally negatively affected (which more are everyday as evidenced by the Americans without insurance number for example) and rise up against you ilk.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know! Lets take a system already mired down by bureaucracy and inefficiency and turn it over to the government! Yeah! There's sooo many examples of how that has worked!

But there is the problem with that argument...what's YOUR solution? Health care in this country has some serious problems, not the least of which is that a lot of people simply can't GET health care until they are rushed to the emergency room. You don't want the government to fund or run it...fine, how do we solve the problem? "Free market" arguments are great for bumper stickers, but it's not a magic wand...you actually have to make an argument here. I too would like lower taxes and smaller government, that doesn't mean I'll irrationally support such action when the situation doesn't provide any other solutions.

You right, health care has some serious problems in the country, but I dont think goverment is the end solution. We dont have a free market in health care industry, we have a highly regulated market.

We need to let health insurance be insurance. Insurance is for the unexpected and expensive situation. Having insurance to cover common ailments just unneeded layers to obtain and pay for care. Think of how expensive home/auto insurance would be if any repair work only required a $5 copay.

The problem is that there is no medical equivalent of a $15 oil change at Jiffy Lube. EVERY medical procedure more complicated than buying vitamins at the grocery store is hideously expensive, even standard preventative care and common ailments. I honestly don't know if that's the fault of the medical industry being greedy, or if that's just how much health care costs...but it's simply not something that average people can afford without extensive insurance paying for everything. And if you don't have that insurance, you better never visit the doctor until you really need to, because you're going to go bankrupt paying for it. Hell, if you have any complicated treatment, there is a good chance you'll go bankrupt even WITH insurance.

I would disagree. We have been conditioned to believe that all medical care in this country is expensive. Next time you go see a doctor, ask him what they would charge you if you were paying cash and you will probably be surprised at the answer. When I asked my docs I see this question, I got answers that were quite affordable. Remember, they are not too fond of dealing with insurance companies as well. Basic healthcare is far more affordable than you think it is.

I think in the next few years were are going to see the rise of the minute clinics at walgreens and walmart is trialing something similar that will lower these costs even more. Looks what walmarts $4 scripts have done for health care costs already.


We need to get insurance companies out othe common health care stuff and let the market work there. Keeping the insurance companies hides the cost and adds extra cost that is just not needed.

 

[ProfJohn]

I can not understand how anyone would want to take our entire healthcare system and turn it over to government control.
In 2005 the US spent $2 trillion on healthcare, or $6,700 per person.

We are talking about taking our $2.9 trillion FY 2008 budget and turning it into a $3.9 trillion budget. At that point we are talking about one third of every dollar in this country being spent and controlled by Washington. (Add the state and local budgets and over half of every dollar in the country will be controlled by the government.)

And the idea that we are going to ?ease? the burden of providing hea lthcare off business is BS. All we are doing is shifting the burden from one part of the economy to another. It is true that your employer will no longer have to pay $15 a week in health insurance dues on your behalf, instead they will have to pay $15 more a week in taxes, or you will have to pay $15 a week more in taxes.

Finally? the idea that Universal Healthcare will result in lower overall health spending is a half truth at best. Yes it is true that Canada spends less per capita on healthcare than the US. They do this by rationing healthcare services. Need an MRI get on a list and wait a month, need knee surgery get on a list and wait a month etc etc. The second we have ?free? healthcare in the US we will have to decide if we want to spend a TON more money in order to provide everyone with quick and easy access to medical procedures or if we want to do what the rest of the world does and ration healthcare services.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

My solution is like many, including on this board.

Let the government negotiate for lower drug costs.

Money buys more and better things. Period.

If you want a better life, quit whining about how someone should give it to you.

MAKE your own life. UHC wont change this a bit.

Wow, so many American hating statements in one breathe.

Your buds are the one's that took "negotiations" out of drug costs.

Well thanks for at least being honest about the rich deserve to live while all other eat sh!t and die mentality even if it means you hate all Americans except the rich.

Its not that black and white Dave.

The richer you are the better life you have. Whats your problem with that? It has nothing to do with hating Americans, it has to do with reality. Something you know nothing about.

Yes it was "black & white" for the better part of 225 Years until your ilk took over control with an agenda for destroying this Country and continuing to destroy it.

No one has had a problem with the rich until they impinge on ordinary American's rights.

It happened in the 1880's which led to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

It happened with the 1929 Crash and it is happening again now.

You will clearly be on the wrong side of the fence once enough Americans are personally negatively affected (which more are everyday as evidenced by the Americans without insurance number for example) and rise up against you ilk.

First of all, I'm curious who my "ilk" are.

Second of all, as usual and not suprising, you dont have a frigging clue what your talking about. How about something you know nothing about: facts

Given the rudimentary state of medical technology before 1920, most people had very low medical expenditures. A 1918 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of 211 families living in Columbus, Ohio found that only 7.6 of their average annual medical expenditures paid for hospital care (Ohio Report, p. 116). In fact, the chief cost associated with illness was not the cost of medical care, but rather the fact that sick people couldn't work and didn't get paid. A 1919 State of Illinois study reported that lost wages due to sickness were four times larger than the medical expenditures associated with treating the illness (State of Illinois, pp. 15-17). As a result, most people felt they didn't need health insurance. Instead, households purchased "sickness" insurance -- similar to today's "disability" insurance -- to provide income replacement in the event of illness

The fact that people generally felt actual health insurance (as opposed to sickness insurance) was unnecessary prior to 1920 also helped to defeat proposals for compulsory, nationalized health insurance in the same period. Although many European nations had adopted some form of compulsory, nationalized health insurance by 1920, proposals sponsored by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) to enact compulsory health insurance in several states were never enacted (see Numbers 1978).

Also from that paper, Blue Cross and Blue Shield were the first real health insurers as we know them today. That was in mid 1930's, and was designed to reduce price competition among hospitals (Blue Cross) and for doctors and providers to protect themselves from competition with Blue Cross, as well as to provide an alternative to compulsory insurance (Blue Shield)



You have no idea what youre talking about Dave. You just throw shit against the wall to see what sticks. Even a blind dog finds a bone now and then.




edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: blackangst1


edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

Nice! That means that there are ~13 million people in this country who's personal plan for healthcare is specifically to deal with what they can directly and if the tab get's too high to stick it to everyone else anyway. Nice ethic of 'personal responsibiltiy':roll:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of that 45 million are people like me who don't have healthcare because they choose not to pay for it.

PJ is one of them.